Missing discipline with checkins

[Matt Rogers]

On Jul 21, 2008, at 9:04 PM, David Nolden wrote:

> Am Montag, 21. Juli 2008 20:35:29 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
>> I'd like to ask for some more discipline with checkins. Right now  
>> trunk
>> doesn't build because the duchain tests are not building. I've also  
>> had\
>> to fix a couple of extra ";" that occured after macro's to even get
>> platform compiled. Note that dirk's dashboard compiles with -pedantic
>> on, so we'll be red as long as those are around.
> Yeah time to enable that -pedantic flag again, it probably got lost  
> somewhere
> while creating new build-environments.
>
>> Basically one should obey the basic SVN guidelines for KDE's svn
>> repository, written down here:
>> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/SVN_Commit_Policy
>>
>> Especially the first four points. That means everybody who wants to  
>> hack
>> on KDevelop needs to
>>
>> - enable building of tests via -DKDE4_BUILD_TESTS
>> - rebuild both kdevplatform and kdevelop - completely! before any
>>  checkin
> I understand the problem, but the first is currently not an option.  
> Already
> now, I spend a significant part of my development time waiting for the
> compiler to finish, and I don't want to increase it even more,  
> becoming even
> less productive. Unfortunately I have to work on core parts atm that  
> usually
> really trigger a lot of rebuilding.
>
> In the last case I forgot that cmake has duchain tests too, I'm  
> sorry for
> that.
>
>> I don't think thats too much to ask, given that some of us have  
>> really
>> limited time and would like something that at least compiles.
> I understand that. I'll try being a bit more careful when committing.
>
>> And for next years SoC if there will be one, I think we need to have
>> feature branches for the SoC projects - especially if the projects  
>> work
>> on core parts.
>
> I'm not sure of that. You would just postpone problems to a later  
> point, when
> you have to merge everything, and all in all you have even more  
> problems.
> People would be writing code for obsolete APIs, creating even more  
> code that
> needs to be ported later. Me and Hamish would have done tons of  
> completely
> incompatible changes during this SOC, if I had used a branch. Above  
> that,
> people want to see the whole progress, without having to compile  
> another
> version of kdevelop for each development branch. Also branching with  
> SVN is
> not fun, with git it would be something different.
>
> Branching does make sense where something is completely rewritten,  
> and where
> it's clear that the new code is less functional/much less stable  
> then the
> previous code. For other cases, it would be better having a "stable"  
> branch
> for using, and a "trunk" branch where most of the development  
> happens. I
> seriously think we should switch to git in near future..
>
> Greetings, David

Leaving the branching discussion aside, it is not acceptable from my  
point of view to build without tests enabled if you are a developer.  
It should be obvious as to the reasons why. If you don't want to build  
the tests all the time, then perhaps you need to make use of 'make  
edit_cache' to the turn the flag on and off as necessary.
--
Matt